Kolkata Court April 2012 Judgments
Kolay Properties (P) Ltd and Another Vs. the State of West Bengal and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. Both the writ petitions have been filed assailing the common judgment and order dated 30th March, 2011 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 2576 and 2577 of 2009. In these writ petitions several important issues relating to the concept of Thika Tenancy have been raised for consideration and adjudication by this Court. We have heard the writ petitions analogously since both the writ petitions arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. From the records, we find that one Biswanath Pal was the owner of 14 Cottahs of land in respect of the premises in question. Out of the aforesaid 14 Cottahs, 5 Cottahs of land on the eastern portion of the premises in question was in occupation of K. C. Ghosh and Company. The balance 9 Cottahs of land on the western portion of the said premises was let out to one Sripada Mitra in the year 1937. The said K. C. Ghosh and Company left the aforesaid 5 Cottahs of lan...
Tag this Judgment!Keshab Chandra Ghosh Vs. Shrimati Sandhya Rani Jana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 20th November, 2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court at Midnapur in Title Appeal No.64 of 2000 reversing the judgment and decree dated 25th of January, 2000 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), First Court at Midnapur in Title Suit No.136 of 1996. The appellant/plaintiff filed said suit alleging that while he was exercising his right, title, interest and possession in ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule properties, he sold away ‘B’ schedule property to the defendant by a registered kobala dated 21st of April, 1995. It is further case that the defendant started construction by installing concrete pillars adjoining to the common boundary wall in violation of Municipal law and rules and without keeping required three feet space. Though at the initial stage at the intervention of local people, the defendant demolished the pillars upto the ground...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kartick Chandra Mondal Vs. Sri Sunil Kumar Purkait and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2002, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Baruipur, South 24 Parganas in Title Appeal No.133 of 1997, reversing the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Baruipur in Title Suit No.227 of 1982. The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that one Rajkumar Mondal and Nirab Mondal were in possession of the suit property, each, having eight anas share therein. It is further case that Nirab Mondal sold out his eight anas share in the suit property together with other properties to Debendra Nath Mondal under registered kobala dated 12th May, 1952. Rajkumar Mondal’s widow wife Kusum Kumari Dasi also sold away her share in the suit property together with some other lands to Nagendra Nath Mondal, Debendra Nath Mondal and Basanta Kumar Mondal under registered kobala dated 10th July, 1939. On account of said purchase, De...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Deshapran Building Stores Vs. Sardar Kirtan Singh and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, J. Although, this appealhas been classified as first appeal, in all fitness of things, the appeal should be classified as an appeal from original order. This is an appeal against an order rejectingthe application filed by a third partyobjector under Order XXI, rules 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under rule 103 of Order XXI of the Code, the orders passed on such adjudication are to be treated as decrees, but in view of the judgment of a division bench of this court pronounced in the case of Surajmal Jain vs. Prabir Kumar Sett reported in 1980(2) C.L.J. 161, the appeal against such order is to be classified as an appeal from original order. A division bench of this court, byorder dated December 14, 2004, inter alia, held that this appeal is to be classified as regular first appeal. It seems that attention of the division bench was not drawn to the aforesaid decision of Surajmal Jain (supra). We, therefore, direct theoffice to register the appeal as an ...
Tag this Judgment!Samir Kumar Dutta and Others Vs. Sunil Kumar Dutta and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2012
Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 3rd April, 2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kandi, Murshidabad in Title Appeal No.15 of 2000 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1999 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandi, Murshidabad in O.S. No.44 of 1994. Respondent Nos. 1 – 3 namely Sunil Kumar Dutta, Dilip Kumar Dutta and Joydev Kumar Dutta filed said Title Suit against Kiriti Bhusan Dutta (defendant No.1), Iti Dutta (defendant No.2) and Prabir Kumar Dutta (proforma defendant No.3) for specific performance of contract. Plaintiffs alleged that plaintiffs, defendant No.1, Proforma defendant No.3 and defendant No.2’s husband Samir Kumar Dutta were brothers and used to reside in joint mess and property. Suit plot Nos. 214, 215 and 216 being amalgamated plots of land were purchased by the brothers through different kobalas in the name of defendant No.1 Kiriti Bhusan Dutta and de...
Tag this Judgment!Visa Steel Ltd. Vs. Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TA 5.OF 201.WITH CS 13.of 2012 VISA STEEL LTD.Versus XSTRATA COAL QUEENSLAND PTY. LTD.& ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :17. h April, 2012. Mr.P.Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate Mr.D.Ghosh, Advocate. Mr.Ratnanko Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Arvind Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Ms.A.Bansal, Advocate Ms.Nikita Jhunjhunwala, Advocate. . For petitioner. The Court :- This is an interlocutory application in aid of a suit to restrain the defendants from proceeding with a foreign arbitration. This application is moved ex parte at 2.00 p.m.after obtaining prior leave from me in the morning. The urgency shown is that by a letter dated 21st March 2012 an Australian Firm of Solicitors acting on behalf of the defendants, had warned the plaintiff that unless they agreed to an arbitrator by 18th April 2012, their clients would approach the English Courts for appointment of an arbitrator. It is submitted that if not...
Tag this Judgment!Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Tribeni Barik and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
ORDER SHEET AP No.285 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Versus TRIBENI BARIK & ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date :17. h April, 2012. Appearance: Mr.S.Mukherjee, Adv.The Court :- The petitioner financed Rs.19,52,651/- to the respondent no.1 for purchase of the vehicle specified in paragraph 2 of the petition. The amount advanced along with interest was repayable in 47 equal monthly instalments of Rs.54,200/- per month (except the fiRs.instalment, which was of Rs.30,000/-) commencing from 01.09.2011. An agreement dated 5.8.2011 was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondents in terms whereof the petitioner has the right to take possession of the vehicle, in default of compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement including in payment of any instalment, sell the same, and realize the proceeds thereof towards pro tanto satisfaction of its dues. The agreement also contains a clause for resolution of disput...
Tag this Judgment!Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Bodake Nilesh Machindra and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
ORDER SHEET AP No.288 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Versus BODAKE NILESH MACHINDRA & ANR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE Date :17. h April, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Anuj Singh, Adv.The Court :- The petitioner financed Rs.16,56,000/- to the respondent no.1 for purchase of the asset specified in paragraph 2 of the petition. The amount advanced along with interest was repayable in 47 equal monthly commencing from instalments 10.11.2010 of and Rs.43,650/ending on per month 10.9.2014. An agreement dated 9.4.2010 was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondents in terms whereof the petitioner has the right to take possession of the asset in default of compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement including in payment of any instalment, sell the same, and realize the proceeds thereof towards pro tanto satisfaction of its dues. The agreement also contains a clause for resolution of disputes by arbitration. The respon...
Tag this Judgment!Gms Marine Company Ltd. Vs. the Owners and Parties Interested
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.1573 of 2011 AS No.15 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Admiralty Jurisdiction GMS MARINE COMPANY LTD.Versus THE OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL M.V.VINASHIN SKYI BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER Date :17. h April, 2012. Mr.Arijit Banerjee, Mr.Swatarup Banerjee, Mr.Subhojit Ray for the petitioner. The Court : This is an application taken out by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint in Admiralty Suit No.15 of 2009. The short point which has been urged by the learned counsel for the defendant is that the plaint in the suit is based on a settlement agreement dated 26th June, 2008, executed by and between Vinashin Ocean Shipping Company Limited, being the erstwhile owner of the vessel M.V.Vinashin Sky and GMS Marine Company Limited, a company organized and existing under the laws of British Virgin Islands. The cause title of the plaint, however, discloses that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the appropriate laws of Korea...
Tag this Judgment!Apeejay Private Limited Vs. Uco Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GA 234.OF 201.CS 14.of 2011 WITH GA 255.of 2011 APEEJAY PRIVATE LIMITED Versus UCO BANK BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :17. h April, 2012. Mr.J.Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.Anuj Singh, Advocate Mr.Biswajit Kumar, Advocate Ms.Shruti Swaika, Advocate ..for Apeejay PVT.LTD.Mr.S.Chaudhury, Advocate. for UCO Bank. The Court :- The defendant bank through Mr.Chaudhury, learned Advocate has taken an extremely fair stand in this Chapter XIIIA application. This application is taken out in aid of a suit for eviction. The tenancy was monthly. The rent payable was Rs.74,477/- per month for flat No.13, Park Mansion, 57A, Park Street, Kolkat016. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was issued by the plaintiff on 21.6.2010. By virtue thereof the tenancy of the defendant stood determined with the end of 6th July, 2010. Instead of taking untenable points of defence, the defend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »